One example of a-maybe patchy- seventies album is at the speed of sound. Most of his later album are stronger..but Beware My love,Silly love songs, Let em in and some more are stuff of classic status that as songs might be even better than most of the stuff from postanthology. But as actuall albums New and Chaos are better. Imho

I love "Beware My Love", "Let 'em In" and "What's That You're Doing?" ("Silly Love Songs" is ok. Actually it's pretty ingenious, but it's not a song that has lasting power for me). We should keep in mind that Paul was a younger man in those days and was writing for the pop charts, whereas now he seems to be writing for himself. Both periods are really just segments of the man's evolving life. The entire tapestry of his career contains nearly every kind of music that has been an influence on him really. Each album represents a nook or cranny in the overall arc of his career and I can appreciate every stage of it at one point or another. So what if a song isn't deep? If I'm not looking for anything deep, I'll find it. If I am, I'll find it. Take for example AC/DC. Now, I'm not a fan, but I'm familiar with their work. If I'm in the mood for hard guitar-driven rock, they've got it. But that's it. There are no "Somedays" or "Queenie Eyes" or "Martha My Dears". Paul has offered up so many different styles through the years, it really boggles the mind. Just no one else compares...

[quote="Mattal1958"]uh, oh, mhnso. I better not comment on some of those songs that you think are actually better than the post-Anthology stuff. I'll shut my mouth now!

Everyone is free of their opinions-my point was not to claim that the songs mentioned are better but at least Silly Love songs(whatever on might think of that song) and Let em in are bonafide classic popsongs that back in the days were enormously big hits. Beware my Love might not be a classic but should be since it-imho-are one of the best rockers Macca ever delivered. My point was that even a lesser somewhat rushed album like At the speed of sound contains some songs that are true classics in modern music. I agree that there are songs in the postanthology era that should have the same status but they don t. With that said I honestly feel that albums like New and Chaos are more consistent in quality than most of Maccas earlier album. Or put it this way-the real, game changing classic songs might have occured more often in the seventies-early eighties but the later albums are more mature, have more personal lyrics and mostly does not contain some of the lightweight fillers that we frequently find on the earlier songs.Some-and just a few examples of game changing" classics from earlier days might beMaybe Im amazedMonkberry Moon DelightBackseat of my carMy LoveLive and let dieBand on the runMrs VanderbildtLet me roll it1985Listen to what the man saidSilly Love songsGood night tonightWonderful chrismastime(on the list of the 25 most played christmas songs ever)Mull of Kintyre(o this day the most sold-non charity song-single in UK and a song that is a true timeless standard -still sung in pubs and football stadiumsComing upNo more lonely nightsHere todayHowever much I like Maccas newer albums it s hard to find songs with the classic status as those above. Calico skies, Little Willow, To much Rain, Fine line, Vanity Fair, mr Bellamey, Scared Early days, Jenny Wren and many more might(imho) be just as good but does t have the real classic and timeless status as the earlier I mentioned. Hopefully this will happen in time.

I do not think that because "Let Em In" sold a kazillion copies and was a huge hit that it therefore is a classic McCartney song. In fact, I think it's awful. It's indicative more of the times than anything else. 1976 was a strange year in pop music. Disco was coming to the fore, punk and new wave were about to burst onto the scene, and the style of music that we loved from the late 60's thru the early 70's was becoming "boring" in the eyes of many radio stations, and a younger demographic. Frankly, it was a dead period in pop music. Something had to fill the vacuum. "Let Em In" was a huge hit because it was Paul McCartney and he was on top of the world at that point and he could have released "Mary Had A Little Lamb" (oh, wait, he had done that already)...or "Jack And Jill Went Up The Hill" and had a hit with it.

There were TONS of great songs Paul released in the 70's. I just don't think many of the albums stand up from beginning to end. RAM does. BAND ON THE RUN does. I can't think of anything else.

He's been a LOT more consistent, and the subject matter of his songs have been a bit more weighty, since the Beatles ANTHOLOGY project.

That's just the way I see it. I know a lot of people won't see it like that. I understand that.

I could also make a list of songs I LOVE from McCARTNEY (1970) to McCARTNEY II (1980). It would be a looooooonnnng list, in fact. But, the albums are just too inconsistent-- for the most part.

And, now I'm repeating myself, so I shall shut up and take my dog out in 3 degree weather (something I've been trying to avoid, but she's pestering me now!).

(The 80's were probably worse, if truth be told...but it's saved by TUG OF WAR!)

in years to come/they may discover/what the air we breathe and the life we lead are all about/but it won't be soon enough for me

Mattal1958 wrote:Just my opinion here, and not taking shots at anyone who disagrees.

I do not think that because "Let Em In" sold a kazillion copies and was a huge hit that it therefore is a classic McCartney song. In fact, I think it's awful. It's indicative more of the times than anything else. 1976 was a strange year in pop music. Disco was coming to the fore, punk and new wave were about to burst onto the scene, and the style of music that we loved from the late 60's thru the early 70's was becoming "boring" in the eyes of many radio stations, and a younger demographic. Frankly, it was a dead period in pop music. Something had to fill the vacuum. "Let Em In" was a huge hit because it was Paul McCartney and he was on top of the world at that point and he could have released "Mary Had A Little Lamb" (oh, wait, he had done that already)...or "Jack And Jill Went Up The Hill" and had a hit with it.

There were TONS of great songs Paul released in the 70's. I just don't think many of the albums stand up from beginning to end. RAM does. BAND ON THE RUN does. I can't think of anything else.

He's been a LOT more consistent, and the subject matter of his songs have been a bit more weighty, since the Beatles ANTHOLOGY project.

That's just the way I see it. I know a lot of people won't see it like that. I understand that.

I could also make a list of songs I LOVE from McCARTNEY (1970) to McCARTNEY II (1980). It would be a looooooonnnng list, in fact. But, the albums are just too inconsistent-- for the most part.

And, now I'm repeating myself, so I shall shut up and take my dog out in 3 degree weather (something I've been trying to avoid, but she's pestering me now!).

(The 80's were probably worse, if truth be told...but it's saved by TUG OF WAR!)

We seem to agree about the fact that Pauls recent albums are more consistent than some of his earlier albums. When it comes to discussing individual songs it s all down to personal taste. Personally I love Let em in. It s a rather unique song with clearly autobiographical lyrics and a gorgeous melody that none but Macca could come up with. Also-within the onechordlimit a very complex and multilayered arrangement. The sound of that song has nothing to do with the sounds of the time-it s a typical eccentric and timeless Maccacreation. Silly love songs is one of the biggest hits of all time for a reason. It s extremely catchy and has a bassriff to die for. not to mention the joyous horns that I(everytime I hear it)don t want to end. Maccas musical genius also shine through the countersinging on that one. They don t make em like that anymore

The point I've often made to the relatively small number of friends of mine who are remotely interested, is that over the last 20 years, Macca's music has, of course, sometimes been better, and sometimes not, than what preceded it over the previous 20 years, but the difference now is that very rarely is it not interesting.

Now I'm no great fan of Driving Rain, I think it's his weakest album since Pipes Of Peace, but I appreciate exactly what he was trying to do there, and even where it's not very good, it's still interesting. When Pipes Of Peace falls flat, as I find it frequently does, there is nothing of interest whatsoever there for me.

Flowers In The Dirt - Motor Of Love - I would probably rate as my least favourite McCartney song of all time, and it is bland, it is not remotely intersting to me in any way. I do feel though that if he had written and recorded that same song at any point from Flaming Pie onwards, I still probably wouldn't like it, but I bet it would a heck of a lot more interesting to listen to.

I do have a theory as to why this is, haven't got time to go in to detail now, but will maybe create a new thread over the next couple of days.

interesting thoughts, oobujoobu...will be curious to read what it is your getting at.

"Silly Love Songs" is not a favorite of mine, but I DO see the musical quality in it. It's got a catchy arrangement, nice counterpoint vocals (three at the same time! That is impressive for a pop song) near the end, a great bass line, and a clever lyric.

But, it's too cutesy for me. Just my tastes, that's all.

in years to come/they may discover/what the air we breathe and the life we lead are all about/but it won't be soon enough for me

I used to like "Silly Love Songs" a lot more than I do now. For me, even though it's brilliant, it seems to be one of those songs that is perhaps too lightweight. It kind of lost the "newness" that a song needs to become one of those songs that I never tire of.